Michael Pearl Interviewed on CNN

Michael Pearl was interviewed by Anderson Cooper on this videoHere is the transcript, it’s about half way down.  His double speak is very obvious here.

In case that link ever is removed, Chucklestravels has posted it http://chucklestravels.wordpress.com/2011/10/28/showdown-on-cnn-anderson-cooper-interviews-michael-pearl-transcript/

About Hermana Linda
Hermana means sister in Spanish and Linda is my name. I was born in late 1960 to a mother who had traveled around the world and had been impressed at the baby wearing she saw in Africa and Japan. While in Japan she purchased the baby carrier in which she is wearing me in my avatar. By the grace of God, I trusted Jesus as my personal savior in 1983. He gave me a husband in 1987 and 2 sons in the early 1990's. All glory to God.

Comments

  1. Hermana Linda,

    I don’t know if this is what you were looking for, but I noticed this evening that Anderson Cooper’s blog just posted this video tonight, apparently from previous interviews.

    http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/27/video-faith-and-child-discipline/?hpt=ac_bn2

  2. kimberly says:

    when i heard about this book and story my heart sank. i have no idea how a book like that gets published! and it boggles my mind that companies sell it, people buy it and think it sets out a good plan for how to rear a child! unbelievable.

    when i watched anderson cooper 360 last night, i was nearly yelling at the television. how is that not hitting or beating? how do you establish trust with your child when they are scared of you? that isn’t trust or respect…that’s fear plain and simple.

    here is the link to the video:

    http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/27/video-faith-and-child-discipline/

    • Thank you. Yes, it is very upsetting. As far as how the book got published, it was self-published by the authors. :(

    • Jason says:

      What is sad is you all are supposed to be Christians? How in the world does it sadden you that a Christian advocates….wait for it….wait for it….doing what the bible says??? GASP! How incredibly sad that this is indicative of the state of Christianity in america today where people who claim ot believe the bible tell God, “we know better God, thanks for the advice but we will spare the rod, we hate our children”. We have a brother in Christ upholding the Scripture as the final authority and instead of defending him you attack him with impunity. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. God hates those who sow discord among the brethren and God views sowing discord to be an abomination!! Do you not care? How incredibly sad that you people take this unbiblical stance with the world and stand finger pointing at a faithful Christian who now stands taking shots from the devil and his devious plans for the destruction of the family and you are there fighting with the devil. You should repent and pray for Mike Pearl. Ask God to forgive you for your discord and stand in the truth of God’s Word and not in your ridiculous worldly opinion.

      • You obviously have not taken the trouble to read much of this site. I have many explanations of what the rod (shebet) is and what the Bible says about it. I will not explain it again here. If you prefer to believe that we don’t care what God says or care to obey it, nothing I say will convince you to believe otherwise. If you really want to know what we believe, you will read the arguments on this site and the links in the side bar, especially, The Rod Study and Is Spanking Biblical?. You can also find many links here to people who do believe in spanking who still argue that Michael Pearl teaches heresies. The Bible is very clear that we have an obligation to expose false teachings. I do not attack him, I only argue against his teachings.

        Now, let me ask you this, Michael Pearl claims not to teach corporeal punishment. You and I both know that he teaches “Biblical chastisement” which is corporeal punishment. So, tell me, is he telling the truth or is he being deceptive?

        Edited to add: Chucklestravels got a similar comment on his blog from Jason and his response was so well thought out that I had to share it.

        • Jason says:

          Mike Pearl did not laugh at the death on anyone. Laughing at your critics on one hand is far and away different from laughing at a little girls death. To say his laughter is in any way related to that girls death is an incredible slander and you should retract your statement. You are asking for trouble with that kind of lie and you should be above lying to try to defame the character of another.

          • I do understand the difference between laughing at one’s critics and laughing at the death. However, the laughter was wildly inappropriate given the situation. He did not express any sympathy for the child nor did he ever revise his advice to put an upper limit on how many licks a child could receive in one day. His teachings continue to say to continue to spank calmly until the child surrenders his or her will. That is exactly what the Schatz couple was doing and it killed the child.

      • Zooey says:

        Jason, may I second Hermana Linda’s excellent suggestions, and refer you especially to the “Parenting In the Name of God” book.
        It was written over the span of about a year, by a genuinely Christian couple, to expose just how UN-Biblical that the Pearls’ teachings are. Stacked up against the Holy Word of God, Michael Pearl comes out looking shockingly opposed to the teachings of the Bible.

        • Jason says:

          How in the world is spanking “shockingly opposed” to the bible? It isn’t. We are told explicitly to use the rod of correction. It is the same greek word found in Prov 10:13, it is the same word in Hebrew used all over the OT. A five minute word study would dispel any question:

          Pro_10:13 In the lips of him that hath understanding wisdom is found: but a rod is for the back of him that is void of understanding.
          Pro_13:24 He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.
          Pro_22:15 Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.
          Pro_23:13 Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.
          Pro_23:14 Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.

          Notice in 10:13 that the rod is for the back, and in 23:13-14 we are twice told to “beat” the child. I am quite sure that in the TTUAC book, we are properly taught the context there and we are not told to beat in the modern sense of the word, but rather to spank in order to correct.

          For those who don’t know, the word rod in all of the verses above is the same root word as seen in Strongs Concordance:

          “shêbeṭ
          shay’-bet
          From an unused root probably meaning to branch off; a scion, that is, (literally) a stick (for punishing, writing, fighting, ruling, walking, etc.) or (figuratively) a clan: – X correction, dart, rod, sceptre, staff, tribe.”

          This is the same word that is used in Ps 23:4, “thy rod and staff they comfort me”. God chastens those He loves, and we are told that we are to spank our children. If you want to be completely specific, you should use a stick or switch (see Strong’s definition above) but some people use similar objects such as paddles or rulers.

          I will look at the website that I found on the book. Apparently there is an e-book. I have a good idea what I will find. “The bible doesn’t say that “in the original”, “God doesn’t want us to spank,” “Michael Pearl doesn’t believe in TULIP therefore his doctrine is all wrong”. I have heard it all before. Facts remain, spanking comes straight from the bible, and has been used by all people groups for all time. Some better than others, some take it to the extreme. It is not God’s fault that some children die as a result of a parent not understanding basic human value as to beat their child to death, nor is it Mike Pearls for attempting to teach a biblical concept in an understandable and Christ-like way. Thanks again for the reference.

          • Did you read The Rod Study and Is Spanking Biblical?. Those look at the word Shebet very closely.

          • I would like to note that many people who believe in spanking have spoken out against the teachings of Michael Pearl.

          • Zooey says:

            Jason, you seem very defensive of Michael Pearl. Have you considered going before a Higher Authority than he, & seeing what the only Saviour has to say?
            If so, I recommend that you begin with, as I have suggested before, the outstanding (& free!) e-book, “Parenting In the Name of God”, which reveals that what the Pearls teach is the rankest Pelagianism, & therefore not of Christ at all.
            We are taught by God, in the words of the Bible, that we are to avoid false prophets, & lying teachers who seek to deceive “even the very elect”. Michael Pearl is such a teacher. His wife is another.
            Let us always look to the words of our Saviour…..and that is most certainly NOT Michael Pearl’s & his spirit of antichrist.
            Remember always, that the real heart of the issue is NOT about spanking; it is about seeking to please God, & not follow after a mere man.

            May God bless you as you seek Him, showing you how to discern the Word of Christ from the teachings of the Pearls.

          • I’m pretty sure that Jason is a personal friend of Micheal Pearl, or as he refers to him, “Mike.” It is understandable that he would defend him. I hope that he will read the evidence with an open mind.

          • Jason says:

            I am not a personal friend of Mike Pearl. I just type Mike because it is faster. As far as his teaching Pelagianism, that is simply wrong. As a matter of fact, he has written to dispel this falsehood. Here is a link to one brief article “http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/articles/bible-teaching/article-display/archive/2007/october/10/answering-the-critics/”. Being someone who is very familiar with his bible teaching, I would likely be able to dispel any errors in your opinion regarding his teachings be it regarding Calvinism, Pelagianism, or Adam. As far as the e-book, I began looking at the website. It is pretty clear that they are calvinists. Most of what they disagree with Mike about has to do with doctrine, and not parenting. Of course, I am not a calvinist and I have very strong feelings about that doctrine. I have gone around and around debating calvinists, but the bible just takes second place to their systematic theology and there is no talking to them. But we could discuss that if necessary.

            I read the article on the “rod or shebet” and it doesn’t dispel the simple facts. Whoever wrote it went to great lengths to try to take away from the clear, simply discernible language, but to no avail. The rod is a rod, and beating is spoken of and only beating could lead to death. God says it will not lead to death, which of course it would not. There is no way to make the simple language say something it doesn’t, not matter how hard you try. No parent likes to spank. If they do, they have issues. But what I like to do is different from what I am instructed to do. Many people take the opposite route, and let their feelings dictate their obedience. Then they set about to dispel the clear meaning of Scripture to make themselves feel better. It doesn’t work, which is why those who are against spanking are so vile in their attacks. They are ultimately still trying to convince themselves. It’s like talking to angry atheists. I know they believe there is a God, because the bible tells me. The only reason they get so angry is because they are really just trying to convince themselves to soothe their conscience. God teaches spanking, and we all know it as we are all able to read. If you choose not to spank, that doesn’t make you a bad parent. If you attack a brother in Christ who upholds God’s teaching and try’s to teach it in a practical way, that makes you a terrible Christian.

          • Thank you for reading. Yes, we are discussing doctrine, not parenting. I hadn’t noticed that they were calvinists. Anyway, I am not attacking anyone, just arguing against what seems clear to me are false teachings. That is what the Bible tells me to do. Also, I have not noticed the non-spankers to be vile in their attacks, I notice more those who would convince them to spank being rude. I appreciate that you are not like them. I am noticing a lot of people who are very upset at this 3rd death by a child whose “parents” were following Pearl’s teachings. I freely admit that in this recent case (as with the first) they twisted the advice and turned it into something which Pearl never intended. I have said that before. But I cannot say that about the death of Lydia Schatz. Now, when people read what Pearl teaches, it is clearly abusive to most people. So much so, that they get upset and say horrible things. (You do not see me saying such things, I am just a clearinghouse of information.) Even if the Bible did say to beat our children with a Rod, it would be abusive to do so and would clearly require more interpretation. Maybe you should read William Webb’s book, Corporeal Punishment In The Bible Or just read the 2 reviews in post I just linked. He argues that the Bible does not say to spank with small sticks, plumbing lines or anything other than a staff (Shebet) which would clearly kill a child. If we are not going to do it the way He said to, it should be because we are not under Grace and are not to spank at all. But spanking or not is not really the point. As I pointed out earlier, I have a tag for pro-spankers who still have concerns about Pearl’s teachings, both the doctrine and the abusive nature of trying to control another human being to that extent. You can read blog post after blog post of many different reasons that various Christians have condemned the teachings. I do not link to the arguments of non-believers except in the case of Mainstream media which is on interest on another level.

          • Jason says:

            I appreciate you posting my responses, which is more than I can say for some sites who seem more interested in making a point than having a discussion. First of all, in regards to the links from the book, here are some that I have not once found on any of these blogs all around the internet that are attacking the book:

            “Train up-not beat up. Train up-not discipline up.” “A child needs more than ‘obedience training’, but without first training him, discipline is insufficient” page 4

            “Disciplinary actions can easily become excessive and oppressive if you set aside the tool of training and depend on discipline alone to do the training.” Page 9

            “Parent, have you trained yourself not to discipline immediately but to wait until your irritation builds into anger? If so, then you have allowed anger to become your inducement to discipline.” Page 25

            “Parent, if you are having problems with your children, you can be assured that you are not alone. Your children are also having problems with you. You are going to have to make adjustments in your own life if you are going to help them with their problems.” “… the responsibility for making a significant change is completely yours.” Page 32

            If a child is angered by the impatience and pride of parents, page 33 says:
            Father, if you care for your child’s soul more than your pride, then humble yourself and ask his forgiveness (even if he is just two years old). Then, become a patient father and husband (Your wife will feel your impatience, too.). Spend time with your child doing things that are creative—things that give him a sense of great adventure or accomplishment. You can’t lead your child closer to God, peace, and discipline than you are yourself.

            “There are always some who act in the extreme. These individuals are capable of using what has been said about the legitimate use of the rod to justify ongoing brutality to their children.” page 50

            “The rod should never be a vent for parents’ anger. Where the supreme motivation is anything other than the child’s good, it is inevitable that such behavior by the parent will assuredly create problems.” page 51

            These quotes and the rest of the book are about turning the hearts of parents to the children and the hearts of children to the parents. The book is one of great balance. The introduction speaks of good parenting resulting in less than 5% of parenting being discipline. Asa far as the death of Lydia Schatz, i would have to argue with you. They did not follow the teachings to a ‘T’. First of all, they caused enough damage to cause hospitalization to her and a sibling. That is clearly against the teachings of the book. There is also the warning against children who are withdrawn, warnings about creating an atmosphere of fear etc etc etc. I understand some people take it to the extreme and it is sad and very unfortunate. But rather than try to find someone to blame, why not simply mourn. This country tries to blame every wrongdoing on someone, or something. If people get shot, blame the gun, the gun store owner. If people eat fast food and get fat, blame Mcdonalds. Why do we blame a brother in Christ for the death of a child? Because they owned his book? Did they have a bible in the house? Should we blame God? It isn’t fair, it isn’t right. Mike Pearl is not to blame any more than James Dobson or God himself.

          • It is true that he has some good things in that book, a fact which I have never denied. But again, his emphasis on breaking the spirit of the child at all costs is abusive and dangerous. And as far as I could tell, the Schatzes were calmly switching Lydia according to the advice in the book. They were not angry, they were calm. The damage was internal because it continued for so long. Lydia would not give in, would not submit. She remained rebellious. She continued to fight back, which means that the chastisement had to continue. Pearl never draws a line, such as, “Never allow a spanking to continue for more than 1 hour per day,” or “Never give more than 100 licks per day.” I doubt he ever imagined that any child would refuse to submit or that the tissue would break down if she did. Anyway, as I said before, mixing bad advice into good advice does not make the bad advice any less dangerous, in fact, it makes it more dangerous. If all he had was the good advice and the exhortation to spank, I wouldn’t have made this website. But his emphasis on breaking the child’s will and demanding blind obedience is a real concern to me. The child is not allowed negative emotions, must drop everything he is doing if the parent speaks to him and they even tempt toddlers in training sessions in order to train them to obey without question. I cannot see that as anything other than abusive.

            Oh, but I should add that I do blame the Schatz couple for what they did. Absolutely. They are not innocent at all. A reasonable person would have realized that this advice was not working and stopped following it. All I am saying is that it is bad advice.

          • Jason says:

            I read a bit of the book by the Dyck’s called “Parenting in the name of God” and i posted on their forum as well. I don’t think I have run across anyone who knows so little, yet professes so much about a person’s theology as them. They claim to have done a years worth of research and yet are so off base I wonder if they did any at all. They say they have a “team of researchers” whatever that means, but they have no idea what the man teaches, or what the bible teaches, or both. It doesn’t really matter, but it is worthless, really, in understanding what the man believes. I don’t think they consulted a single person from within the ministry, or anyone even vaguely familiar with it, which certainly explains quite a bit of their error. But all in all, it is not going to help anyone gain any truthful insight into the man and his ministry. It will give them plenty of cannon fodder, but not aimed in the right direction or for the right reasons. You can see a brief exchange and some of my specific thoughts on the subject here: http://scitascienda.com/2011/06/25/review-of-no-greater-joy-child-training-doctrine/#comment-7278

          • They got their information from reading his books and articles and listening to his teaching tapes. That is the information he presents and if it is not representative of what he really believes, it needs to be responded to anyway, since that is all most people will come across.

          • Jason says:

            Yes, that is what they did, I have no doubt about that. They just have completely misrepresented what the man teaches because they don’t understand what they read. I have read quite a bit of the book now, and I have yet to find a section that they address that is even remotely close to understanding what he wrote. I am not saying they were malicious, just they can’t fathom the points being made, even when the verses are right there and are given as context. Take this as an example from page 57 of the book:

            (I have placed Pearl’s writings in quotes and the Dyck’s comments outside of quotes as I do not know of any other way to delineate in this response)

            “So, here is what most Christians have missed. When a person believes on Jesus Christ,God immerses him into the very body and life of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 12:12-14)…Christ’sactions become the actions of all who are in him (1 Cor. 15:22; Rom. 6:8). Just as whenAdam sinned, I sinned (Rom. 5:12), so when Christ didn’t sin, I didn’t sin (2 Cor. 5:21)”

            As an aside, if you go to 2 Cor. 5 and read 5:21 in its surrounding context, you’ll notice it’s part of a call to salvation. Its relationship to Pearl’s point becomes curiously unclear when the Bible is used as the interpretive standard for the verse, rather than the NGJ commentary given. Further, Pearl states:

            “…Here is the crux of sanctification. When Christ died, he not only died for sin, he also died to it (Rom. 6:10)…As sin was defeated in Christ, and because I am now in him, sin was likewise defeated in me. I am as dead to sin as is Jesus (Rom. 6:7; Romans 6:2; 1 Pet. 2:24)….”4

            Again, Rom. 6:10 is wrested from its biblical context, which states that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again. So we are to reckon ourselves, though we are not resurrected yet, as those who will be sinless one day, and we are not to let sin reign over us—be in charge of our life path,our decision-making—as long as we are in this mortal body.

            (I have placed Pearl’s writings in quotes and the Dyck’s comments outside of quotes as I do not know of any other way to delineate in this response)

            My comments on this are as follows:

            What we have here is a clear misunderstanding of what Pearl is writing as well as a misunderstanding of what the bible is saying. The “other half” of the gospel is that we are already dead to sin. This seems obvious to anyone who reads Romans 6, but the Dycks seem to curiously miss it, even to the point of rewriting the verse in their own theological musings as seen above. When pointing out what happens to us in 2 Cor 5 21, we are told that we are “made righteous”. It is not that we are slowly becoming righteous, but we are made it without earning it. It is the imputation of Christ’s righteousness and Pearl states it as plainly when he states “when Christ didn’t sin, I didn’t sin” Just as Christ was not actually sinful but was “made sin” I am not actually righteous on my own but I am “made” righteous by the sovereign declaration of God. The Dycks completely miss the point and call the application “curiously unclear” while Pearl is pointing out “when Christ didn’t sin, I didn’t sin”. It is simply the application of being baptized into Christ. We are righteous because He was. We didn’t sin (in God’s reckoning) because Christ didn’t. Very simple stuff.

            Again, Pearl points out that Christ not only died for sin but He died to it. Pearl uses Rom 6:10 which states “he died unto sin” to point out that fact. Pearl then points out that “because I am now in him, sin was likewise defeated in me. I am as dead to sin as is Jesus”. The dycks have great difficulty with this otherwise straightforward application of the verses to the point of our identification with Christ. It is the basis on which Paul tells us to “reckon ourselves to be dead indeed unto sin”. It is because as Jesus died, and we are baptized into His death, we are likewise dead to sin. Rather than let the verses and their application stand on their face value, the Dycks change the verse in their interpretation to mean “So we are to reckon ourselves, though we are not resurrected yet, as those who will be sinless one day”. Where in the bible are we told to reckon ourselves as those who will be sinless one day? Now, no doubt we will be, when we lay down this body and get a new one, but we are told to “reckon yourselves to be dead unto sin” and it is because of this reckoning, the fact that we are dead, that we can then “THEREFORE let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body”. It is not for any other reason.

            This teaching is painfully clear and easily discernible by Pearls writings alone to anyone familiar with Scripture, but the facts are made more plain and clear by the addition of the bible verses in the comments to leave no doubt. And yet the Dycks have such great difficulty with such a plain passage. The Dycks claim the verses are “wrested from their original context” and nothing can be further from the truth. The context is “when Christ died to sin, so did I” and “I am dead to sin because I was baptized into Christ and Christ is dead to sin” and that is exactly the teaching of Pearl from those passages. How in the world someone who is educated can claim they are not applicable and accurately applied can result from only three possibilities. Either 1) they are not very familiar with the teachings of Scripture or 2) They don’t fully understand Pearl’s teaching or 3) a little of both. Notice none of these possibilities include slander or malicious intent.

            This is just one example. I could do this for every section of their book and show how they clearly misunderstood what they read or heard. I am going to address one more point from Daves section on doctrine (pg 59). Every time I glance at another page I want to say “wrong! Pearl never taught that!”

            Also, I just flipped through the book and looked at the reference sections placed at the end of each chapter and I noticed something very disturbing. For those who claim to have put in a year of research, why did they only read a handful of articles and only listen to a handful of sermons? If you are going to write a book attacking someones theology, would it be too much to ask to download the entire “Romans” audio or better yet, spend $8 on his Romans commentary? If you truly wanted to understand someone’s doctrine, and not simply gather a few facts to attack, don’t you think a year is enough time to at least skim through it?

            Here is what I believe happened. They got wind of something and thought they may have tried not to, came to some conclusions that were negative. They then approached the book with a theory, read a few articles, listened to a few sermons and made their conclusions. They then spent 11 months and 2 weeks of the year on researching their conclusions, rather than the man’s teachings.

            That has to be the case. Taking a year to understand someones doctrine would have included reading the Romans commentary, listening to his audio series on Mark or John etc. It seems they were working with limited material based on their feeling that they didn’t need any more as they had their conclusions.

          • It seems to me that Pearl’s teachings are not very clear if they are that easy to misinterpret. I have found him to have his own definitions of things which makes simple statements mean something quite other than they seem and is what we refer to as “doublespeak.” An example of this is stating that he does not teach corporeal punishment while teaching that one must spank. He states that he is living without sin and then when someone refers to that statement he insists that they are deliberately misunderstanding him, that he never claimed to be sinless.

            By the way, did you see my latest post? When I read it, I noticed that in her testimony she says that she was trying so very hard to follow Pearl’s teachings yet it is clear from Pearl’s warnings that they had gotten abusive. It seems that in some situations people have a really hard time following the entire teachings. This is another example of why it doesn’t work. Sometimes they can’t follow the instructions without being abusive and need to stop trying. How much better it would be to never start.

          • Jason says:

            I can understand how you could misinterpret what he is saying. But if you are going to write a book about it, then you should do your homework. The fact that they don’t even have Romans in their references says quite a lot. He has a commentary that sells for $8! Taking a whole year to write the book yet only referencing a handful of available items is simply troubling.

            Regarding “sin no more” it is not the same as being without sin. Yes, I wish he would say it every time it came up so the web would have less people claiming he teaches “sinless perfectionism” but he says it enough for those interested. He has a nine CD series titled “Sin No More” that says that very thing and the Dycks should have consulted that as well. Was a year not long enough for them? Jesus told the woman caught in adultery to “go and sin no more”. Are we going to accuse Jesus of teaching “sinless perfectionism?” It is biblical language used by our Lord Himself to a person who was not even indwelt. It is not difficult to understand the difference between “sinless perfectionism” and the ablility to be an overcomer. Are we not free from sin? Are we not told that with every temptation we are provided a way out? Are we not led by the Spirit to that way out? The ability to not sin is moment by moment and he has never claimed you will never sin. Any person who claims that he has simply is in error.

            I also agree with you that some people may find the Pearls teachings difficult to follow as well. But the bible says “beat them with a rod” and yet we don’t hear of that. The bible tells us “pluck out your eye” or “cut off your hand” and yet people have enough common sense to know better. Being difficult is not an admission of evil intent. We wouldn’t say that about the bible and we wouldn’t say that about the Pearl’s book. We wouldn’t say, “the bible is so outdated and advocates stoning adulterers and those who work on Saturday, it could lead to death so we shouldn’t even start, it’s too confusing.” No, we would show restraint, common sense and the ability to discern. Same thing with TTUAC.

          • I would consider just responding to the teachings of To Train Up a Child enough. Going so far as to read articles on their website and downloading a pod cast or two is going above and beyond. And you don’t agree with their doctrine anyway, so what difference does it make to you what they believe about his? Many people consider me a heretic, and I consider them heretics, but I don’t let it worry me. Anyway, it is obvious that we are never going to agree. You are saying that it is obvious that when the Bible says to “beat them with a rod,” that it doesn’t really mean to beat them and it doesn’t really mean a large rod, but insist that it really means to strike them with a small stick. When you read the argument that it really means to weild Shebet as its other meaning, Authority, you claim that we don’t want to see the truth.

          • Jason says:

            But Linda, they aren’t commenting on the book. If anything, the book they wrote has way more to do with the doctrine of Mike Pearl than it does the book. Just look at the table of contents. And it is far from going above and beyond. That would be like judging your blog based on a thread or two. But you keep pointing me (and rightly so) to various articles you have written to give me a broader view of your site.

            And most importantly, they are not simply disagreeing with him. They are calling him a Pelagian, a Gnostic and saying that he preaches “another Jesus”. Those are bold claims. i think calvinists are wrong, but I don’t count them as outside the faith. It is the seriousness of the charge that warrants the rebuttal. We can disagree all day and still have fellowship with each other in the unity of the Spirit. But writing a book attacking a man and calling him a heretic is beyond that and if they saw fit to go that far, then they should have done MUCH more research.

          • Good points (I guess). And you made your points and she left them up, so I think that’s the best you can expect. They stand by their assessment and it pains me to admit that I don’t actually understand either argument well so I can’t really comment.

  3. TealRose says:

    I am disgusted with the Pearls and with the fact that they are allowed to publish anything as vile as this book of ‘How to abuse your child, and get away with it…’ there is not one grace filled thing in that book at all. It is heresy.

    I believe that satan is laughing his way through the world at all the strife set up between children and their parents by being hit, and by being taught that God ‘expects’ them to be hit and hurt. I cannot understand how anyone can hit a child, how anyone thinks Christ would hit a child or expect us to and HE is of the New Covenant not the old. I cannot understand how anyone thinks hitting a child will help it love God or learn anything – the fact is thousands of teens and adults leave the church and leave Christianity in it’s entirety due to having been treated to the abuse that is called ‘discipline’ by some Christian families.

    I believe too that there is going to be a huge run on millstones soon … and no wonder the sea is rising !!

    • Zooey says:

      Teal, what you say is so true!!
      The heresy taught by the Pearls is leading so many into not only abusing their children, but also into following a false teacher who uses the Name of the Saviour of men to cover their own self-taught conceits.

    • Jason says:

      I noticed you said, “there is not one grace filled thing in that book at all, it is heresy”. In response to that seemingly uninformed post, I wanted to show you some quotes that you will not find on these sites that attack that ministry. It seems a full, well-rounded look at their teaching is not the purpose of most people these days.

      From the Introduction:
      This book is not about discipline, nor problem children. The emphasis is on the training of a child before the need to discipline arises. It is apparent that, though they expect obedience, most parents never attempt to train their child to obey. They wait until his behavior becomes unbearable and then explode. With proper training, discipline can be reduced to 5% of what many now practice. As you come to understand the difference between training and discipline, you will have a renewed vision for your family—no more raised voices, no contention, no bad attitudes, fewer spankings, a cheerful atmosphere in the home, and total obedience from your children.

      Page 4
      “Train up-not beat up. Train up-not discipline up.” “A child needs more than ‘obedience training’, but without first training him, discipline is insufficient” \

      Page 9
      “Disciplinary actions can easily become excessive and oppressive if you set aside the tool of training and depend on discipline alone to do the training.” Page 9

      ]If parents are frustrated to the point of anger, page 25 says:
      When children see you motivated by anger and frustration, they assume that your “discipline” is just a personal matter, a competition of interest. The child thinks of you much as he would of any other child who is bullying him around. He is not being made to respect the law and the lawgiver. He believes that you are forcing him to give in to superior power. When you act in anger, your child feels that you are committing a personal transgression against him—violating his rights. You have lost the dignity of your office. As politicians often say, “You are not presidential enough.” If your child does not see consistency in the lawgiver, in his mind there is no law at all, just competition for supremacy. You have taught yourself to be motivated only by anger. And you have taught your child to respond only to anger. Having failed to properly train your child, you have allowed the seeds of self-indulgence and rebellion to grow to ugly proportions.

      Page 32
      “Parent, if you are having problems with your children, you can be assured that you are not alone. Your children are also having problems with you. You are going to have to make adjustments in your own life if you are going to help them with their problems.” “… the responsibility for making a significant change is completely yours.”

      ]If a child is angered by the impatience and pride of parents, page 33 says:
      Father, if you care for your child’s soul more than your pride, then humble yourself and ask his forgiveness (even if he is just two years old). Then, become a patient father and husband (Your wife will feel your impatience, too.). Spend time with your child doing things that are creative—things that give him a sense of great adventure or accomplishment. You can’t lead your child closer to God, peace, and discipline than you are yourself.

      ]If parents are given to extreme responses, pages 50 and 51 say:
      A CAUTION TO RECIPIENTS OF THE MILLSTONE AWARD
      There are always some who act in the extreme. These individuals are capable of using what has been said about the legitimate use of the rod to justify ongoing brutality to their children. I can think of several right now. These abusers of their children would not in the least view themselves as such. They would call themselves “strong disciplinarians.” “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matt. 18:6).
      “The rod should never be a vent for parents’ anger. Where the supreme motivation is anything other than the child’s good, it is inevitable that such behavior by the parent will assuredly create problems.”

      Page 84 says to set a worthy example for children to follow:
      PARENTAL PROTOTYPES
      Never expect more of your children in the way of attitude than you are of yourself. Happy, well-balanced parents who neglect the rod and reproof will have grouchy, complaining, tantrum-prone children. But in a situation where one or both of the parents are an emotional wreck, not much can be expected from the child. A CHILD IS GOING TO BE THE HARVE ST OF HIS PARE NTS’ TEMPER AMENT. If the mother is sulky, critical, or selfish, the children will have a tendency to be the same. If the father is a bully or full of anger and impatience, his sons will be too. If the father is rude, demanding, and disrespectful of the mother, you can expect the same from his sons. If a father is intemperate or lustful, the children will likely be worse. I have seen many children openly despise their parents’ sins, yet grow up to be just like them. The lesson in this is: YOU MUST BE what you want your child to be—in attitude as well as actions. Don’t try to “beat the ugly” out of a child who is simply a display window of your own heart attitudes.

      And page 97 says not to threaten or intimidate children with threats about God:
      I have cringed at seeing parents use God to intimidate their children into obedience. A child has been “bad,” and the mother warns, “You shouldn’t do that, God doesn’t like it.” Or worse, “God is going to get you for that.” And again, “Mama might not see it, but God does.” Talk about negative, counter-productive training! If you constrain a child by threatening him with divine displeasure, he will come to hate God and will throw off religion as soon as he is old enough for independent action. It happens with regularity. Never, I say, “NEVER use God to threaten or intimidate your child into compliance.” You are causing the child to associate God with condemnation and rejection. You should teach your children of God’s judgments, of heaven and hell, and the awful consequences of sin, but not as a means to manipulate their daily behavior.

      ]written by Michael Pearl – IN DEFENSE OF BIBLICAL CHASTISEMENT?
      When is it abuse?
      You are abusing the child when it starts doing harm to the child. Listen to your friends—especially to those friends that share your philosophy. Ask the opinion of people you respect. If they think you are abusive, get counsel in a hurry. Ask the opinion of your older children. If your child is broken in spirit, cowed and subdued, you have a problem. Children should be happy and cheerful, full of enthusiasm and creativity. If your children are fearful or anxious, you should get some counsel.

      • It is true that he has some good things in that book, a fact which I have never denied. But surely you must admit that there are few false teachings which do not mix lies into truth. And take another look at his definition of abuse. He never gives an upper limit. Did you read what I posted in Why Blame The Pearls At All? The Schatzes were calmly applying the rod for hours, taking breaks to pray. The child never submitted and they never stopped. Surely it should have occurred to them that they were abusing, but it appears that it did not. The plumbing line which is supposed to not bruise, actually causes internal damage, breaking down tissue until proteins clog the kidneys, leading to death. And yet he does not warn against that. Lydia was not broken in spirit, cowed and subdued. Quite the contrary, she refused to be broken until the very end. The teaching boils down to, “you must break your child’s will at all costs” and that right there is inherently abusive and dangerous.

        • Jason says:

          In response to the comment on another blog, which I have been “banned from”, here is the answer for contend4thefaith (comment found here: “http://scitascienda.com/2011/06/25/review-of-no-greater-joy-child-training-doctrine/#comment-7287″). Questions are in quotes and my responses are below.

          Since you feel I “understand Pearl better than anyone else” I will attempt to answer your questions in the best way I can from my understanding.

          “Is all of mankind plagued by original sin”

          Of course. All men are Born Separated from God, under the penalty of death as a result of Adam’s sin (1 Cor 15:22), in a fallen world (Rom 8:22), filled with sin (Rom 5:12), with a devil around to tempt us as a “roaring lion”.

          “> I am not actually righteous on my own but I am “made” righteous by the sovereign declaration of God.
          That sounds good. So you and Michael Pearl (in his teaching) would admit to being sinful. Would you tell us approximately how long it’s been since you sinned? How long you think it’s been since Pearl has sinned (today, a few days, months, years, since salvation)?”

          Yes, I would admit to being sinful and I sin every day. Michael Pearl has also admitted to not being without sin. Perhaps a look at his study “50 Sins” would help clear up the matter for you. He addresses 50 sins common to Christians. He also has a teaching series entitled “Sin No More” which addresses the matter plainly. Of course, I assume your question regarding how long it has been since he sinned to be rhetorical since there is no way for me to do anything but guess, that like the rest of us, daily.

          “Do you (and Michael Pearl) believe that some edition of The King James Bible is the only true Word of God in English?”

          I believe that all modern bibles based on the Westcott and Hort minority, Alexandrian text, found today in the Nestle and Aland and UBS greek texts, are corrupted. I also feel this is readily demonstrable from a number of doctrinal errors in those versions and is a topic I have studied. I feel the KJV is the Word of God for English speaking people and is superior to any modern bible.
          While I hold to this concept, and feel very strongly about it, it is not something I make a huge deal out of outside of my family and church. It is not central to telling someone the gospel or even discussing doctrinal issues. Of course some versions muddy the waters more than others, such as the NIV, simply because it is not a word for word translation. The church I attended before I moved out of state used the NASB and it was a fine church.

          If you feel you need more clarification, please let me know. I do have a question for you, I notice your name is “contend4thefaith”, where did you get that name?

        • Jason says:

          In reference to the comment found here: http://scitascienda.com/2011/06/25/review-of-no-greater-joy-child-training-doctrine/#comment-7293. The questions are in quotes and my responses are below.

          ““The greek word is consistent “sarx”.”
          In the passage you cited, the word is soma (σώματος τοῦ θανάτου), not sarx.”

          I didn’t say the verse was sarx. I said the concept is unbiblical and used the verse to make my point, not in reference to the root, but to the fact that we get a new body, not nature, a point Paul understood, but bible “scholars” take issue with.

          “Adam and Eve were created with the same fleshly desires that we have today…Eve chose to obey the pleasantness of her eye and her desire to be wise rather than obey God.”
          OK, but which body part did the desire for wisdom arise from? Her arm? Big toe? Islets of Langerhans? Please….please do not say brain. That wouldn’t be wise. ”

          That is a ridiculous question. It was the flesh. You can disagree with God if you want to. Many desires come from the flesh. Here it is in the bible:
          Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
          Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
          Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

          God said that those desires come from the flesh. You can do like the NIV committee and change the words if you want to, but God has some pretty strong words for those that change His words. (Rev 22:19)

          ““Sure, the devil was thee coaxing her, but the sin was hers nonetheless.”

          And while we’re at it, which body part prompted the devil to generate his primordial sin against God?”

          You will have to ask God. The bible does not say. And are you claiming that the devil and angels have the same body of flesh and blood as humans? Can you show that from the bible? If not, what relevance does your question have?

          ““Mike Pearl has never said that the body was sinful and you will not find it in any of his writings”
          And you laud this? The Bible clearly teaches that all of man is fallen. “”

          The reason the question came up was the point in the book where the Dycks say that Mike pearl teaches the flesh is evil. I pointed out that was not true and she retracted it, saying that he teaches it is “neutral” then claimed it didn’t contradict her book.. Not sure how it can be evil and neutral, but ok. The point is the flesh, unless animated by a living soul, is neither sinful nor evil. The body has drives and desires which we give into in ungodly, unintended way, such as fornication, gluttony, eating forbidden fruit etc. The point is, man is fallen. That does not mean, nor does the bible teach, that something changed to man at the fall. His world and his relationship to his creator changed, but he did not suddenly gain some sinful nature. This is easily discernible from the bible.

          “Hey, Jason. I do as well appreciate the restrained tone thus far, so I tell you what. I’ll be happy to engage you in a Pearl-centered debate on a neutral site. Or…make it a site of your choice. Or, choose a champion if you want. No worries…”

          I would be happy to discuss “Pearl theology” with you anytime. I frequent a theology forum board, but perhaps that is not “neutral.” Since I am banned from Scita, perhaps email would work best, or your blog. I care not.

          “PS-if you’d like to double down on Reformed Theology when we’re done, I’m your huckleberry. ”

          First of all, best movie of all time. I will be forced to like you now that you have reference that movie, much to my chagrin. You can be Ringo, I will be doc.  I have debated TULIP’s before, I would have no issue with it and welcome it anytime.

  4. MS Quixote says:

    Hey Jason,

    You can be Doc, but that would make me Wyatt, not Ringo. So, with regard to your incoherence posted above, I’ll just say “Are you gonna do something? Or just stand there and bleed?” :)

    So, yeah…I might have to like you as well. Tell you what, just leave the link to your forum ( quite OK if it’s not neutral) here or at my site, and we’ll take the debate over there. That way, we’ll not clutter these good folks’ sites.

    Cheers.

    • Jason says:

      OK, first, who is Ms Quixote? I thought I was speaking to Marc Schooley… the site I frequent is http://www.theologyonline.com. I am there under the name “choleric”. And, no bleeding for me. the reference to the phrase “im your huckleberry” was between doc and ringo, remember…

    • Jason says:

      Would you like me to repost my response to you in a thread on that forum? Then you could simply join in and add your response. Once we are done with this topic, we could move into Calvinism and get you straightened out :). Let me know what makes you most comfortable…

  5. Marc Schooley says:

    Hey Linda,

    It’s sometimes thought that we are the same, no worries. That mainly started because Quixote endorsed The Dark Man. I’ve got one picture of Quixote some years back, but he doesn’t like me to show it around because he’s self-conscious about his glasses. If you go to my sight, you can see I clearly don’t wear any. Not even contacts, and I have 20/20 vision.

    At any rate, Jason, I’ll get registered over there and look you up. See you soon…

  6. Jason says:

    Hello Linda. Thanks for the offer. I am up for whatever. I would say that a forum site is typically better for any type of in depth discussion as the formatting options lend to a more succinct debate. That being said, I would draw my posts in a sandbox if that is what it takes. I will wait for marc to look me up over there as he stated unless he changes his mind.

  7. Jason says:

    Did Marc change his mind? Just curious.

  8. Jason says:

    If anyone sees Marc, let him know I haven’t forgotten about him. If he has changed his mind it would be nice to know.

  9. Jason says:

    Just wondering if Marc has been around anywhere. Maybe he realized the issue wasn’t worth debating, or perhaps he realized the information he was working with (Parenting in the name of God) wasn’t accurate? Either way, just curious if I should continue waiting or should I just give up? Thanks for keeping hope alive Linda!

Speak Your Mind